Yevamot 115

לרבי מאיר דאמר קדושין פסלי חופה נמי פסלה לר' אלעזר ור' שמעון דאמרי קדושין לא פסלי חופה נמי לא פסלה

According to R. Meir who holds that the betrothal causes ineligibility, the bridal chamber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the absence of betrothal. ');">¹</span> also causes ineligibility, while according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon who maintain that betrothal causes no ineligibility the bridal chamber also causes no ineligibility. But whence [is this proved]? Is it not possible that R. Meir advanced his view only there, in respect of betrothal, whereby <i>kinyan</i> is effected, but not in respect of the bridal chamber whereby no <i>kinyan</i> is effected!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bridal chamber alone without the additional kinyan of money, deed, or cohabitation is of no validity. V. Kid. 5a. ');">²</span>

וממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ התם אלא בקדושין דקני לה אבל חופה דלא קנה לה לא

Or else: R. Eleazar and R. Simeon may have advanced their view there only, in respect of betrothal, since it is not close to the act of intercourse; but the bridal chamber which is close to the act of intercourse, may well cause ineligibility. But if anything can be said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the lines of Rami b. Hama's statement. ');">³</span>

א"נ עד כאן לא קאמרי רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון התם אלא בקדושין דלא קריבי לביאה אבל חופה דקריבא לביאה הכי נמי דפסלה

[it is, that the question<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the bridal chamber constitutes kinyan with ineligible women. (Cf. supra p. 385, nn. 11 and 13). ');">⁴</span> depends] on the dispute between the following Tannaim: For it was taught, 'This class or that, [viz.,] eligible or ineligible women, who were married [to a priest], or who only entered [with him] into the bridal chamber without any intercourse having taken place, are entitled to sustenance from his estate and are also permitted to eat terumah'. 'Who only entered [etc.]' implies that 'were married' means that they were actually married!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise both expressions would have meant exactly the same classes. But this meaning is impossible in view of the fact that after actual marriage it is unanimously agreed that the woman is ineligible to eat terumah! ');">⁵</span>

אלא אי איכא למימר בפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא נישאו זו וזו כשרות ופסולות או שנכנסו לחופה ולא נבעלו אוכלות משלו ואוכלות בתרומה

Must it not [consequently be concluded that the meaning is], 'as, for instance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the expression 'or', [H] is to be understood as the equivalent of 'as for instance' [H], and the clause following is an illustration of the preceding one. ');">⁶</span> when they entered the bridal chamber without any intercourse having taken place'? And yet it was stated that 'they are entitled to sustenance from his estate and are also permitted to eat terumah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that, even where the union was a forbidden one, the entry into the bridal chamber alone does not deprive a woman of the right of eating terumah if she was previously entitled to it. ');">⁷</span>

נכנסו מכלל דנישאו נישאו ממש

R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: Any woman whose cohabitation entitles her to the eating of <i>terumah</i> is also entitled to the eating of it through her entry into the bridal chamber, and any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat <i>terumah</i> is not entitled through her entry into the bridal chamber also to the eating of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she was the daughter of an Israelite (v. Keth. 57a). As the bridal chamber and cohabitation are in this case placed on the same level, it follows that in the case of the daughter of a priest also, if she loses her right to the terumah by cohabitation, she also loses it by entry into the bridal chamber. Thus it has been shewn that the question referred to by Rami b. Hama is a matter of dispute between the first Tanna and R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Broka. ');">⁸</span> Whence, [however, the proof]? Is it not possible that R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka is of the same opinion as R. Meir, who maintains that through betrothal alone a woman is not entitled to eat! — Instead, then, of the statement 'Any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat <i>terumah</i> is not entitled through her entry into the bridal chamber also to the eating of it', the statement should have run, 'Any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat <i>terumah</i>, is not entitled through her money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The token of betrothal. ');">⁹</span>

אלא לאו כגון שנכנסו לחופה ולא נבעלו וקתני אוכלות משלו ואוכלות בתרומה

also to the eating of terumah'. But is it not possible that as the first Tanna spoke of the bridal chamber he also spoke of the bridal chamber! R. Amram stated, The following ruling was given to us by R. Shesheth and he threw light on the subject<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he lit up our eyes'. ');">¹⁰</span>

רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר כל שביאתה מאכילתה חופתה מאכילתה וכל שאין ביאתה מאכילתה אין חופתה מאכילתה

from a Mishnah: The bridal chamber constitutes <i>kinyan</i> with ineligible women.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 385, nn. 11 and 13. ');">¹¹</span> And the following Tanna taught the same thing:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. supra p. 378, n. 3. ');">¹²</span>

ממאי דלמא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה כר' מאיר סבירא ליה דאמר קדושין לא אכלה

'Amen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the term was repeated (v. Num. V, 22) it includes all the following. ');">¹³</span> that I<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sotah who confirms the declaration (v. Num. V, 19). ');">¹⁴</span>

האי כל שאין ביאתה מאכילתה אין חופתה מאכילתה כל שאין ביאתה מאכילתה אין כספה מאכילתה מיבעי ליה דלמא איידי דאמר ת"ק חופה אמר איהו נמי חופה

have not gone aside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Have not been faithless'. Cf. ibid. vv. 19, 20. ');">¹⁵</span> as a betrothed, as a married woman, as one awaiting the decision of the levir or as one taken [by the levir]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the levir suspects her of infidelity, v. Sotah 18a, Kid. 27b. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב עמרם הא מילתא אמר לן רב ששת ואנהרינהו לעיינין ממתניתין יש חופה לפסולות ותנא תונא אמן שלא שטיתי ארוסה ונשואה שומרת יבם וכנוסה

Now, how is one to imagine the case of the 'betrothed'? If it be suggested that she was one who was warned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she must not hold secret meetings with a certain man. ');">¹⁷</span> while she was betrothed, and then she secluded herself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the man. V. BaH. Cur. edd. omit, 'and then&nbsp;… herself'. ');">¹⁸</span>

האי ארוסה היכי דמי אילימא דקני לה כשהיא ארוסה וקא משקה לה כשהיא ארוסה ארוסה בת משתיא היא והא תנן ארוסה ושומרת יבם לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה

and is now made to drink<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'water of bitterness (cf. Num. V, 18 and ibid. 17). ');">¹⁹</span> while she is still only betrothed; is a betrothed [it may be asked] subject to the drinking? Surely we learned: A betrothed or one awaiting the decision of a levir neither drinks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'water of bitterness' (cf. Num. V, 18 and ibid. 17. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא דקני לה כשהיא ארוסה ואיסתתרה וקמשקה לה כשהיא נשואה מי בדקי לה מיא והתניא (במדבר ה, לא) ונקה האיש מעון בזמן שהאיש מנוקה מעון המים בודקין את אשתו אין האיש מנוקה מעון אין המים בודקין את אשתו

nor receives a <i>kethubah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she secluded herself with the suspected man and if, in consequence of this, she is divorced by her husband. V. Sotah 23b, Kid. 27b, Sifre, Nasso, ');">²¹</span> Should it, however, [be suggested that she is one] who was warned while she was betrothed, and then she secluded herself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the suspected man, during the period of her betrothal. ');">²²</span>

אלא דקני לה כשהיא ארוסה ואיסתתרה ונכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה ושמע מינה יש חופה לפסולות

and is now made to drink when she is already married; do the waters [it may be asked] test her? Surely it was taught: And the man shall be clear from iniquity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 31. ');">²³</span> only when the man is 'clear from iniquity' do the waters test his wife; when, however, the man is not 'clear from iniquity'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case where he married her, despite her intimacy with the suspected man during her betrothal which had caused her prohibition to him. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר רבא ותסברא דהא מתרצתא היא והא כי אתא רבי אחא בר חנינא מדרומא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה (במדבר ה, כ) מבלעדי אישך מי שקדמה שכיבת בעל לבועל ולא שקדמה שכיבת בועל לבעל

the waters do not test his wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sotah 28a, 47b, Shebu. 5a, Kid. 27b. ');">²⁵</span> Consequently [she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The betrothed spoken of, ');">²⁶</span>

אמר רמי בר חמא משכחת לה כגון שבא עליה ארוסה בבית אביה

must be one] who was warned while she was betrothed and then she secluded herself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the suspected man, during the period of her betrothal. ');">²²</span> and subsequently entered the bridal chamber but there was no cohabitation. Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the woman is subjected to the test of the water though no cohabitation had taken place. ');">²⁷</span>

דכוותה גבי שומרת יבם שבא עליה יבם בבית חמיה

it may be inferred that the bridal chamber alone constitutes <i>kinyan</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the absence of cohabitation. Had not the bridal chamber constituted the kinyan, which brought the woman within the category of marriage, she would not have been subject to the test to which a married woman only must submit. (Cf. Num. V, 19, being under thy husband). ');">²⁸</span> with ineligible women.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among whom the Sotah is, of course, included. Cf. supra n. 5. ');">²⁹</span> Said Raba: Do you think that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah cited by R. Shesheth. ');">³⁰</span> is an authenticated statement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H], 'to be right'), a version the correctness of which has been upheld by refuting all objections raised against it. ');">³¹</span> Surely when R. Aha b. Hanina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 57a where the reading is 'Hinena'. ');">³²</span> arrived from the South, he came and brought a Baraitha with him: Besides thy husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 20. ');">³³</span> only when the cohabitation of the husband preceded that of the adulterer, but not when the cohabitation of the adulterer preceded that of the husband! Rami b. Hama replied: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah cited by R. Shesheth. ');">³⁴</span> is possible where, for instance, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband. ');">³⁵</span> cohabited with her while she was only betrothed and still in the house of her father. Similarly in respect of the woman awaiting the decision of the levir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in her case also the cohabitation of the levir must precede that of the adulterer. Alternatively: Since she also is not subject to the test of the water. ');">³⁶</span> [it must obviously be a case] where the man cohabited with her in the house of her father-in-law!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that his cohabitation took place prior to that of the suspected adulterer, which was also preceded by the warning of the levir and followed by the bridal chamber but by no cohabitation; and the woman is submitted to the test of the water of bitterness in respect of her suspected act during her betrothal! Alternatively: Since in her case, unlike that of the betrothed, the kinyan of the bridal chamber is not applicable. ');">³⁷</span>